This unwillingness of the wealthy to pay taxes just promotes the divides between the rich and the poorer. Where I live public transportation is terribly inefficient, because most people have their own car they clog the freeways with, and because the suburban way of putting a lot more distance between where people live and where they work and where everything else is. It's not realistic to ban cars or anything like that, but it's ridiculous how crowded the streets and highways are with cars, most of which only have one person in them! There should be incentives for using public transportation and making it more efficient.
[selfish and short minded. Here I am, paying 25% of my money to taxes, and struggling to make it. This particular position offers health care to my whole family (I pay a premium for the family to be added, but it is not nearly as much as it would be if we were to obtain the policies on our
If some kind of "national health plan" is implemented, your taxes WILL GO UP MORE and your pay WILL NOT GO UP! Instead, your employer will just stop paying into a commercial plan and pocket the difference. You will end up worse off than you already are.
1) for many people- I do not know if Korrigan falls into this category, but many people do- the difference in expense of higher taxes or paying for full healthcare coverage is immense. It is vastly less to pay the higher taxes than to pay for the full healthcare coverage.
2) it's true that just implementing a higher tax isn't enough. You have to also increase taxes on the super-rich. Right now we have a system where a few people make ludicrous amounts of money and pay a tiny percentage of their incomes to taxes, and most people make very little money and pay large percentages of it to taxes. For someone making a billion dollars a day, a 25% income tax isn't nearly as big a deal as it is for someone who works at Wallmart all day and McDonalds all night to make ends meet. Actually, if we up the taxes on the rich enough- and it wouldn't even have to be much- it would pay for the new healthcare system without requiring us to raise taxes on poor working families.
3) and of course, that doesn't even get into the things we could do with the money currently being spent incredibly ineptly on the war in Iraq. Regardless of whether we stay there or leave, we could easily spend it more efficiently and save so much money we could pay for most of the new healthcare plan with that money.
Im probably not correct on this but, as an american myself, I would not want to pay the higher taxes or wait "in line" for months to get a simple procedure done.
There are probably many other reasons why socialized healthcare isn't the greatest, I think that some people here may be feeling it's good because the "stupid americans" are against it... I could be wrong though.
I agree with DogBrain.
As long as the sodding foetuses are expunged before the established limits within law, why should any of us be so arrogant to be aggrieved by what is essentially a woman's choice in a democracy?
Make it compulsory by law, force women to abort potentially autistic children and that is a different matter...
Test, screen and then sterilize/euthanase people with autistic genes or fully autistic people and that is a different matter, because you impinge upon the rights of the individual.
I really do not see the problem with screening and aborting potentially autistic foetuses, as long as it is within our already established limits.
Change the limits if you must, but why should autistic foetuses be a considered to be a special case if 'normal' foetuses are to be aborted with impunity by women who are simply too busy to have children?
Arrogance!
I am going to hang on in here, but this forum is bizarre and almost entirely leftist in orientation.
As a 'spectrum individual' who claims a fat wadge of benefits and lives the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, I am going to break the mold and state that I do not care if people abort autistic foetuses.
Maybe there would then be MORE state benefits for ME, so that I can continue to have a 24/7/365 jolly at YOUR EXPENSE for the rest of my healthy, but entirely non-productive life.
I agree with DogBrain.
As long as the sodding foetuses are expunged before the established limits within law, why should any of us be so arrogant to be aggrieved by what is essentially a woman's choice in a democracy?
Make it compulsory by law, force women to abort potentially autistic children and that is a different matter...
Test, screen and then sterilize/euthanase people with autistic genes or fully autistic people and that is a different matter, because you impinge upon the rights of the individual.
I really do not see the problem with screening and aborting potentially autistic foetuses, as long as it is within our already established limits.
Change the limits if you must, but why should autistic foetuses be a considered to be a special case if 'normal' foetuses are to be aborted with impunity by women who are simply too busy to have children?
Arrogance!
I am going to hang on in here, but this forum is bizarre and almost entirely leftist in orientation.
As a 'spectrum individual' who claims a fat wadge of benefits and lives the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, I am going to break the mold and state that I do not care if people abort autistic foetuses.
Maybe there would then be MORE state benefits for ME, so that I can continue to have a 24/7/365 jolly at YOUR EXPENSE for the rest of my healthy, but entirely non-productive life.
Who is up for another macro war!
I for one wish you would refrain from a macro war on this thread as its detracting from the issues the topic has brought up.
I reposted because of certain people ruining the thread before anyone has the chance to read what is being discussed.
You claim benefits and then say in the same post that you are healthy?
Other than that, you also seem to have gotten the impression we're calling for abortion of autistic foetuses to be made illegal. Point out where anybody has said this. What we are concerned about is women being pressured into abortion as soon as a prenatal test enters widespread use.
Yes, that is exactly what I said and I am in rude health, thank you very much.
Please point out where I said that 'anyone' was calling for the abortion of autistic foetuses to be made illegal. I never said that 'anyone' was.
If AFF is simply opposed to women being pressured into abortion, then I am fully in agreement with that.
Where that ends, and where women being pressured into not aborting begins is another matter.
Also, I rather suspect that AFF is opposed to the development of a prenatal test in the first instance, although for what reason I cannot fathom, unless AFF is working for the Autism industry - the one which makes money from offering services to Autistic people, rather than the one which seeks to prevent Autism in the first place.
Could you also clarify these last points for me?
I am thinking of leaving this forum...
Best conspiracy theory ever:
We work for the "autism industry", right. When most commercial entities related to autism are selling quack treatments which we actively protest against.......
What about the HUGE commercial entity which provides personal support services to autistic people? Fine, oppose the quacks, let them *chelate* themselves to kingdom come, but do not go about pretending that autistic people are cheap to run, because we require a lot of support which costs MONEY.
We're opposed to the development of a prenatal test because it's got massive abuse potential. So long as abortion is generally legal though it'd be hypocritical to push for it to be made illegal in the case of an autistic foetus.
You sound as though you are making it up as you go along, pal.
What does "rude health" mean by the way?
Are you taking the piss?
It is an idiom:
"If someone's in rude health, they are very healthy and look it."
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/id...ealth.html
As to this:
As a 'spectrum individual' who claims a fat wadge of benefits and lives the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, I am going to break the mold and state that I do not care if people abort autistic foetuses.
Maybe there would then be MORE state benefits for ME, so that I can continue to have a 24/7/365 jolly at YOUR EXPENSE for the rest of my healthy, but entirely non-productive life.
The fact you state that you intend to live off benefits for life and furthermore live a life of luxury while you admit you are fully capable is not just downright nasty (especially with the "YOUR EXPENSE" bit) but also potentially fraudulent if the benefits you receive are related to disability.
Where did I say I was capable of anything? You keep putting words into my keyboard. I said I was healthy. Autistic people can live very long healthy lives even if we never earn a single penny or pay a single tax.
So please, Gareth, many thanks to you and everyone else.
There are some other reasons why I wish to leave:
Moderation on the forum is light, trolling is rife and this does inhibit logical rational discussion and creates a bad atmosphere.
The forum is not terribly user friendly. I prefer a v-forum format.
I am not entirely sure that I want to be part of a forum which has an agenda beyond being a resource for living autistic people. It seems grandiose and antithetical to political tolerance.
Thank you for being tolerant of me on this forum. I really appreciate that, however, opposing pre-natal testing is just going a little bit too far in the direction of the Flat Earth Society for my liking and I would like to my account to be closed forthwith.
Reine, I have seen Gattica and it was a scary film, but we cannot stop scientific progress without putting the next generation at a disadvantage. What we can do is fight to ensure that the next generation are the owners of their own future rather than mere serfs to a socialist or capitalist overlord. Reformers like the Quakers, William Morris did not want to block the progress of science, they wanted to create a less abstracted, more human system than what was in place.
BYE![/i]
How exactly are we going to get accepted as just another minority group (and thus gain protection from discrimination) if we sit back and say "yeah, it's in no way prejudiced to abort autistic foetuses on virtue of autism alone".
How about suggesting that living autistic people help each other rather than depend upon wider NT society for support?
How about creating more possibilities for families with autistic children to help each other, via co-operative homeschooling, care and so forth?
That way, people might not want to abort autistic foetuses in the first place, and it might be more productive than trying to obtain minority status and become 'just another minority group' - your words not mine.
Capitalism and its twin evil socialism have created a greed driven society where the economically inactive are shunted away and kept at a mimimum standard of living. Perhaps we should be questioning this before asking that people willingly breed autistic children who will only be a burden to themselves and society under such a system.
Yeah, just like black people overcame racism by helping each other and refusing all protection under the law against discrimination and like how gays managed to get homosexuality declassified as a mental illness. Oh wait....... that's not what happened is it?
No, it is not, because even in ultra-PC societies like Canada, some people still think that black people are dreadful and that gay people are often crazy, and they act accordingly within the restrictions of the law to express their distaste for these 'minorities'.
Changing the words to nicer sounding PC words and making 'discrimination' illegal will never change peoples 'stereotypes' and 'prejudices', which are usually based upon empirical observations anyway.
For instance, looking at the figures for sexual crimes, someone might assume that black men were more likely to commit rapes than white men and that gay men are more likely than 'straight' men to be paedophiles, because statistically they are.
People are going to form 'prejudices' and 'stereotypes' based upon these observations.
Peachy world. 
Let's review this:
You think socialism and capitalism are both aspects of the same thing
Yes. I certainly believe that 100%.
You think all autistics are "econmically inactive" (or at least imply it)
No, I do not. Again, you put words into my keyboard.
You think all autistics are a burden to themselves and society
No, I do not. Again, you put words into my keyboard.
You have a habit of doing this. Bizarre...
I'm quoting your own posts
That may be, but I neither said nor suggested that, "all autistics are a burden to themselves and society", and I did not say that, "all autistics are 'economically inactive'".
Also, you have some cheek to judge me for being a benefit claimant.
This is total garbage:
If you are healthy then I really do wonder why you claim benefits, as really there are only 3 legit reasons to claim benefits:
1 - permanent and crippling disability
2 - still young and a student (under the presumption you will start working after your studies)
3 - temporary incapacity
All lot of people claim state benefits because they are on a low wage.
I think that the best way to prevent the removal of autism genes from the gene pool would be to identify the beneficial qualities and evolutionary advantage these genes have given to autistic and non-autistic people, and to change the culture of consumerism, materialism, capitalism and socialism which treats the individual as a economic unit.
Unless we do this, we will continue to live in a society where unborn children, disabled people and the elderly are disregarded because they might not be working and paying taxes.
I agree with DogBrain.
As long as the sodding foetuses are expunged before the established limits within law, why should any of us be so arrogant to be aggrieved by what is essentially a woman's choice in a democracy?
Make it compulsory by law, force women to abort potentially autistic children and that is a different matter...
Test, screen and then sterilize/euthanase people with autistic genes or fully autistic people and that is a different matter, because you impinge upon the rights of the individual.
I really do not see the problem with screening and aborting potentially autistic foetuses, as long as it is within our already established limits.
Change the limits if you must, but why should autistic foetuses be a considered to be a special case if 'normal' foetuses are to be aborted with impunity by women who are simply too busy to have children?
Arrogance!
I am going to hang on in here, but this forum is bizarre and almost entirely leftist in orientation.
As a 'spectrum individual' who claims a fat wadge of benefits and lives the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, I am going to break the mold and state that I do not care if people abort autistic foetuses.
Maybe there would then be MORE state benefits for ME, so that I can continue to have a 24/7/365 jolly at YOUR EXPENSE for the rest of my healthy, but entirely non-productive life.
Oooh, I hope this is irony! If not, then I seriously worry about your state of mind.
Oh, that? I think that was just trolling.
I am concerned about public being misspent on asylum seekers, and special programmes for immigrants coming into the country of my birth.
The Labour Party in Britain have now made legal the creation of 'saviour foetuses', unborn babies which can be harvested for their genetically compatible siblings, and also the creation of human-animal hybrid foetuses.
I do not think that that anyone will be able to stop the creation of a pre-natal test, and the genetic research is valuable to living autistic people and must continue. Once it is out of the bag, there will be no stopping it, IMO.
No, not really.
The problem I have with this forum is that people can troll to their hearts content and there is no incentive for users not to troll.
I do not mind the political make-up of the forum. Perhaps an 'opposing views' section might be a good idea, as well as a 'low brow section' for low brow posts.
It is just a shame that the mods here even troll threads, and no-one steps to the defence of beleagured posters who just want to have a logical rational discussion.
Well, maybe you are all just too punk rock for me...
DogBrain, my concerns do matter, because even when I make simple purchases in the shops I am paying taxes directly or indirectly, and my parents have been paying tax for years and I sometimes directly depend upon their money too, and yes, I think that native British people have a greater right to public money than fresh-off-the-boat people.
Of course, you would never dare say any of this to my face, would you?
It is all
ad hominem. You have probably never had to question your values as hard as I have, which is why so many of you, yes, YOU, are so incapable of forming a logical rational counter-argument.
Nice forum, but I have been looking around at other fora, and really, I think that it might be more helpful to meet other autistic people in real time, where we might be more accountable to ourselves and each other.
I think that we all should congratulate each other and the mods for the consummate trolling of this thread.